View/hide extracted text (may have errors)
Banerjee, Kanafani, Walker 1 1 We thank our three anonymous reviewers for their encouraging and perceptive comments. 2 3 REVIEWER 1: 4 COMMENT: Great information about how car ownership is evolving in a big 5 emerging market. 6 Good analysis. 7 8 Add the words "of Findings" at the end of the heading "Discussion" just 9 to make clear that's where your paper is ending. 10 11 RESPONSE : Thank you for your kind words and your suggestion. We have changed ‘Discussion’ to 12 ‘Discussion of Findings’ 13 14 REVIEWER 2: 15 COMMENT: Excellent paper - well written, easy to follow. The conclusions 16 are interesting and clear and potentially useful for practitioners. I 17 have no critical comments of the paper. 18 19 I have one suggestion - it would be interesting to specify a model of the 20 choice process between used and new vehicles. Maybe a next step? 21 22 RESPONSE: Thank you for your encouraging words. We appreciate your suggestion for further study. The 23 present study does model the choice between used and new vehicles, although along with that between the 24 different vehicle categories. In Table 2 that lists the elements of the choice set, vehicle categories are divided 25 into the two sub-categories, used and new. Such categorization in the choice between used and new also 26 models the variations in the preference of used over new across the different vehicle categories. 27 While the model in the paper is a logit model with no nesting structure, we have tried alternative tree 28 structures, using error components to distinguish between used and new vehicles. As described in revised 29 document page 12 Lines 37-39, we faced convergence and significance issues with such structures, possibly 30 due to our small dataset. 31 32 REVIEWER 3: 33 COMMENT: Interesting subject. The selection of seven different municipal 34 zones for stratifying the sample is not explained: how are these zones 35 defined and does this has an impact on the sample and results? 36 37 RESPONSE: Thank you for your suggestions for improvement. We have added the map of the administrative 38 zones in Surat and have explained that the zones are delineated on the basis of location. The land use and the 39 socio-economics of the population varies across the different zones (Page 7, Lines 2, 3, and 4 of the revised 40 document): for example the central zone is the original ‘old city’ around which the new city has grown; 41 diamond polishers and textile workers mostly live in the east zone etc. 42 The definition of zones does not impact the survey or the results. The aim was to get an unbiased 43 representation of all zones in the city and of all vehicle types. 44 45 COMMENT: It is unclear how the analysis responds to the objective of 46 "assessing the trend in composition of vehicles in India" using a sample 47 selected by vehicle category and by unspecified zones within a richer 48 than average uncharacteristic city: 49 50 RESPONSE: We agree that the study does not represent vehicle choice in India and have changed the title to 51 ‘vehicle choice in an Indian city.’ Since India is very diverse, it will be challenging to find a characteristic 52 Indian city. The reasons that Surat was ideal for the present study are explained in revised document page 6 53 lines 26-30. Since Surat has experienced one of the fastest growths of personal motorized vehicles, rapid 54 growth of cars and motorized two-wheelers could be studied best here . TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
